What is your opinion of the news media?

The report I am referring to is the (declassified) US cyber security review of the Russian influence on the US election in 2016. I believe it is the (classified) version of that document that Obama was basing his information on. How does that fit into the theory?

The Russian cyberinfluence in European/Western politics/internal matters goes back to around mid 00's, with Ukraine and Germany being influenced the most. The misinformation campaign surrounding MH17 is an interesting case. This website is perhaps of interest:

As far as I'm concerned, if none of the news media can be trusted on both the right and the left, all that's left are the raw facts that can be proved. Donald Trump lies more blatantly than any President in my lifetime. I don't care if other Presidents have lied, he is undoubtedly the Champion, spouting the most lies in the least amount of time.

So, based solely on his character, I choose not to support him, any more than I would any other liar.

So far, his ill-conceived immigration ban was a bust, due to bad planning. He obviously had absolutely no plan whatsoever for healthcare. His secret plan for defeating Isis was non-existent, and his wall is still in limbo.

This is obvious to anyone not in denial, and I won't bother arguing with you, because absolutely nothing is going to change your mind.

So, we'll just have to wait. At some point, one side is going to be gloating, while the other eats crow. It's still too early to claim a winner.

I happen to believe that supporting someone based upon his character is as good a way as any, so I'll choose not to support Trump.

The report I am referring to is the (declassified) US cyber security review of the Russian influence on the US election in 2016. I believe it is the (classified) version of that document that Obama was basing his information on. How does that fit into the theory?

I have no doubt that the Russians were behind many false news stories in an attempt to get Trump elected. However, what is not talked about is whether they really swayed the election one way or another. I think it's highly doubtful that our election was altered by what were clearly fake news articles being published on social media. The threat of China having a say in how the internet is run in the future is much more alarming considering their track record on censorship. The fact that Obama and Zuckerberg are getting their talking points from Chinese officials is worrisome. The CIA document was not officially published until a much later date.

The mainstream media hates that Trump has tried to flip this idea of "fake news" back on them. From this point forward the media will do whatever is needed to discredit anything coming from the Trump admin.

I agree. I think they invented it to try and put a stop to the alternative news sources that were eating their lunch. It's backfired because it give Trump a way to deflect and accuse them of it for anything he doesn't like.

They should stick to facts of a story rather than focusing on who's bringing the message.

JW_rogue: According to mainstream sources, the Russian troll-network encompass about 1000 full-time trolls, a pro-kremlin propaganda channel (RT today) and wikileaks; I would invite you to read the CIA/FBI/NSA report for details. It is difficult to compute the effect of that kind of media coverage but I believe that according to internal GOP models the last "email" scandal was what gave Trump the win and the emails were certainly an integral part of the disinformation campaign (keep in mind Assange/wikileaks is compromised).

We can't know what effect it had for certain, I agree, but that it had some effect seems obvious to me. I don't think Putin would have risked it if he believed it was pointless.

The email scandal and wikileaks aren't fake news they are hacked information there is a difference. Cybersecurity is definitely something that should be looked at by all government agencies. However, the information revealed was real and showed the true nature of the Democratic party. I'm sure if the Republicans were hacked there would also be a treasure trove of bad publicity. I believe that did affect the election, how much is hard to say, but that isn't the fake news Obama and Zuckerberg came out against. We are talking about spam articles with clickbait titles whose main purpose is to drive traffic and money. These are clearly not reputable sources and the people sharing them are most likely partisans who wouldn't change their minds no matter what happened. I'd like to keep the internet free and deal with the consequences rather than censor everything because dumb people can't tell what's real and what's fake.

JW_rogue: I am not sure I am following you... Wikileaks is part of the Russian disinformation campaign. Russia bankrolled Assange ca. 2012 with a deal on RT today and since then he haven't said a peep against Russia, whereas various "leaks" (FSB cyberoperations) have made their way onto wikileaks.

I am not sure I understand the Obama/zuckerberg angle... I know they visited China, but what does that have to do with the Russian campaign?

But it doesn't alter the fact that Clinton had trust issues way before all those leaks and the needle for her didn't move. I'm not convinced they really hurt her as much as the FBI investigation did and it's easy to argue that was her own doing ultimately (not the timing of the announcement by Comey, that is suspect).

All this talk of Russia hacking for the Republicans just doesn't sound convincing or believable. They could have (or decided to do it because they wanted Trump more than Clinton), I just think it's a stretch to believe there are direct chain-of-command links. Certainly we've yet to see any evidence that itself isn't highly suspect.